NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Tennessee's voter ID law may have its day in court now that a group of college students has filed a federal lawsuit alleging the state is violating rights guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.

At issue is the exclusion of student ID cards from the accepted list of voter IDs.

Jon Sherman, an attorney with the Fair Elections Legal Network, is representing the students.

"The state has discriminated against students and discriminated on the basis of age,” he states. “They've made it easier for older voters to cast ballots without showing ID and made it harder and harder for students to cast their votes."

Tennessee does not require voters submitting an absentee ballot with an acceptable excuse such as illness to provide a copy of their ID.

Sherman adds that most other states that do have strict voter ID laws allow for student IDs as an accepted form of identification. Only Tennessee, South Carolina and Texas do not.

Tennessee's voter ID law was passed in 2011. The state insists that a lack of uniformity among student IDs would make it difficult for poll workers.

In 2012, the U.S. the Government Accountability Office determined youth turnout dropped by more than 2 percent as a result of the law.

Sherman says there are thousands of students in Tennessee who are legal residents and legal voters, but who do not or cannot obtain a state-issued photo ID.

"A lot of students are residents of Tennessee but they don't have anything except the ID they got while they were a high school student back in their prior residence and their student ID card," he points out.

The plaintiffs in the case are waiting on the state's response to their lawsuit. Out-of-state students can get a free ID-only Tennessee card and be allowed to vote, but the lawsuit asserts that process is not feasible for many students.




get more stories like this via email

A man who once faced the harsh realities of Alabama's criminal justice system is now working to ensure others in Mobile County do not have to endure the same struggles.

Chris "Champ" Napier, client advocate for the Mobile County Public Defender's Office, said before becoming an advocate he experienced firsthand the inequities between those who have money and those who do not. He pointed out in the legal system, a lack of financial resources significantly affected the outcome of his case.

"It's based on socioeconomic background," Napier explained. "I'm from a poverty-stricken area; I couldn't afford an attorney. So, the person that was sentenced the same day I was sentenced, because his family had money, he had a similar crime ... I was sentenced to life. He was sentenced to 20 years."

Napier said his personal journey fuels his commitment to leveling the playing field for people who cannot afford a private attorney. In Alabama, 59 of the state's 67 counties rely on court-appointed private attorneys or flat-fee contract lawyers to represent those who cannot pay for legal counsel, rather than having a public defender's office. Napier argued the system leaves many low-income defendants at a disadvantage.

While incarcerated, Napier noted he witnessed how systemic inequalities continued behind bars. He explained one example is the exploitation of prison labor.

"They have factories in prison where they pay the inmates 30 cents an hour but once those inmates are released, they can't get a job at those facilities," Napier observed. "It's really another form of economic exploitation."

Napier emphasized the disparities only deepened his resolve to educate himself while incarcerated. After 14 years in prison, he was paroled. Now, he works to build trust between the office and the community it serves.

"I get to go to the jails and talk to our clients on a one-on-one basis and use my experience -- my pain and my expertise -- to show them that change is possible," Napier stressed. "To show them that they can trust the attorneys in our office."

The Mobile County Public Defenders Office was created four years ago, in response to calls from organizations like Faith in Action Alabama, which recognized the urgent need for a public defender system to serve the most vulnerable in the community.

A new report found Muslim students in New York City public schools face high levels of discrimination in school.

The report from the Council on American Islamic Relations-New York showed close to 60% of students surveyed were bullied by another student for being Muslim. Almost half reported having their hijab tugged, pulled or offensively touched by another student. Most felt reporting such incidents will not make a difference.

Sarah Shahlan, research project coordinator for the council, said it has only escalated since the war in Gaza began last year.

"A lot of incidents were being reported to CAIR New York from students in schools about repression and being suspended and having disciplinary action against themselves," Shahlan reported. "It's simply because of expressing their views."

She added students also face bullying because they physically look Muslim. The report's recommendations included creating anti-bullying policies and developing a task force for Islamophobia to understand the challenges Muslim students face. Shalan acknowledged some challenges to put them into action are if schools are willing to take them seriously and if schools have resources to do them.

Muslim students are not just facing bullying from their peers, as 29% of students reported a school faculty member made offensive comments or acted offensively toward Muslims.

Shahlan noted the report outlined why the incidents often go unreported.

"A lot of the students don't feel that it's necessary to report these incidents or that they don't feel comfortable reporting to an adult at school," Shahlan outlined. "One of the key findings was that over 70% of the students didn't report to adults at school."

She wants state policymakers to understand the takeaways in the report are a small part of a much broader issue Muslims face. During the previous legislative session, New York state lawmakers introduced legislation designed to curb discrimination and harassment in schools. One bill called for creating an educational program to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression but it failed in committee.


get more stories like this via email

A year-old U.S. Supreme Court case means relief for two Nebraskans who faced losing their homes and all the equity they had built, when investment firms bought their property for unpaid property taxes.

Legal Aid of Nebraska, with Pacific Legal Foundation as lead counsel, appealed a Nebraska State Supreme Court ruling saying the homeowners were not entitled to the equity in their homes.

In Pacific Legal's landmark 2023 case, Tyler v. Hennepin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled homeowners in such a situation must be paid for any surplus equity, after taxes and fees. It vacated the decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court, which, upon revisiting the case, concluded the Nebraska homeowners must receive "just compensation" for their equity.

Christina Martin, senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the Tyler decision could open doors for others similarly affected.

"The bottom line is, people who think they have a claim should reach out to Legal Aid of Nebraska," Martin urged. "They could also reach out to property rights attorneys, eminent domain attorneys. And ultimately, this decision is going to protect Nebraska's weakest population the most."

Martin explained, subject to states' statutes of limitations, the Tyler decision is fully retroactive. She added tax foreclosures disproportionately affect older or low-income homeowners, or those with medical conditions.

Caitlin Cedfeldt, staff attorney of the Housing Justice Project for Legal Aid of Nebraska, said it's a victory for the two homeowners and all Nebraskans.

"It is still possible for someone to lose their home, but if they are going to lose the home, they are going to at least get the equity out of it," Cedfeldt explained. "It's kind of incredible that both of these elderly clients will have a chance maybe at keeping their homes."

Cedfeldt pointed out it was the first case Legal Aid of Nebraska filed before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2023, several years after these homeowners' cases were initiated, Nebraska law was changed to require that homeowners receive any surplus equity in property tax foreclosures.


get more stories like this via email